gddxb wrote:Why do you bring up the subject of shooting at 6 seconds for a full rotation with a 400mm lens?

If youÂ´re willing to look at it closely: i didnÂ´t relate it with a 400mm lens at all. That would be complete nonsense - you should know that.

gddxb wrote:No-one. Anywhere. Has suggested to do this.

Right - thatÂ´s why i didnÂ´t relate to it anywhere.

gddxb wrote:Why - for the third time - are you trying to imply that speed modes (regardless of which head is being talked about) are of no use because of the fact that at their fastest setting they're not suitable for use with long lenses? It's as ridiculous an argument as saying that there's no point in having a car that can go faster than 3 miles an hour because that's the fastest speed you can use when parallel parking it.

It is nothing short of willful and deliberate obfuscation. Pure and simple.

"Ridiculous" seems to be your understanding of what i write, to be honest . . IÂ´m not used to reproduce data-sheets or take a calculator but like to tell about real use of my own. Usually there are - surprise, surprise - differences . . .

I tested several speed-modes for some months. Did you do that also for such a long period - and are you in a situation to give judgements about how it works in situations? LetÂ´s hear about it - and letÂ´s see examples which are really good! I clearly wrote that my (!) finding was a realistic use with 35mm@1/500. Using f8 i canÂ´t do that really often in our region without cranking up the ISO to a level i donÂ´t like to do.

Using an 85mm - where it starts (!) making real sense in my eyes in terms of saving time - is nearly impossible to do in our region. ItÂ´s not bright enough.I ALWAYS stated that speed mode needs VERY bright light. IÂ´m NOT against speed-mode basically!! ItÂ´s a questioun of where you really can use it.

A very important point - the most importan point in my eyes: waiting for the most bright light to use a speed-mode means to not shoot when the light is GOOD - but when it BRIGHT.Being an advertising photographer used to highstndards iÂ´m used to shoot when the light is most DELICATE - not when it is most BRIGHT.

Because of all that findings in real use and preferring high aesthetical standards i came to the conclusion i stated.

No problem if your standards are different.

gddxb wrote:Whereas...

i think are more important in real life - i mean: looking into the whole stuff more carefully . . .

is certainly sage advice.

Onto practical matters -

Because iÂ´m rather quality- than speed-oriented i abandoned the speed mode on my head-version of JosefÂ´s. The sensors which prevent exposures at even slightest shaking

This is a very useful feature to have.

Out of interest, what's the quickest time between shots that Josef's head can manage with a 5kg (1d4+400/2.8 II) load?

I didnÂ´t count it - itÂ´s of no interest for me. It works great and i can work with it as it is. But i will take measures for you if you want. Besides: i guess thatÂ´s a question you should ask Josef.

I really donÂ´t understand the haunting for speed. "Speedy" things very often mean excessive editing afterwards.

Did you ever stand in a construction-site shooting a 700Mpx-sphere where everything is in movement?Using a speed-mode doesnÂ´t save you any time at all! What really helps you is to be able to break the sequence any time you need to and proceed from the same position. This way you can avoid badly wrong positions of cranes and so on.Josef implemented a fuction that lets you stop where you want and go back one (or more) frame to do the shot again when the movement is gone and proceed shooting - to the next stop or to the end. THATÂ´S a useful feature in real life and for real working - because this is written to the xml and so you donÂ´t have problems later importing the shots.Really: speed-mode gives you a pain in the *** in such a situation . . . It isnÂ´t "speedy" at all spending hours and hours afterwards for editing doubles or missing objects.

Calculating is one thing - practical experience is another thing.

In a high-res pano you can see a stitch-error of some few pixels by zooming in @100% - right?Using a high-res camera . . and then giving away a part of the resolution for even the slightest pixel-movement . . do you think THAT is clever?Do you think itÂ´s as sharp as it could be at 100% compared to your cameraÂ´s capabilities?

I donÂ´t think itÂ´s really clever. This is why i refuse shooting with continuously spinning heads and "speed-modes". I KNOW the results - i donÂ´t need calculating here . .

People sometimes have - we read it here several times - funny imaginations about "wonderful" speed-modes. They seem to solve nearly any problem in just the fraction of time than doing it manually. And these imaginations usually get encouraged by the manufacturers of gadgets. ThatÂ´s ok - they want to sell products. But the clients sometimes donÂ´t know what theyÂ´re gonna buy before they use the gadget in their own real world. You wouldnÂ´t find any limitations of usability in data-sheets . . at least if youÂ´re not very experienced in reading them and understand what it REALLY means what you read . .

I guess everybody made such an experience at least once with one or the other device. I definitely donÂ´t relate that to a dedicated manufacturer!!

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

josefgraessle wrote:Hallo gddxb, your calculations are correct. It means, that you get instead of a detail in the size of 1 pixel 1.75 pixel. This is reducing your horizontal resolution of your camera from 4896 pixel/1.75 to an equivalent of 2797 pixel. You must decide if that is o.k. for your work.Josef

And if it is not OK, then there is still plenty of scope to slow down the head to reduce the pixel movement further and STILL shoot faster than in a "quality" mode.

Speed, or perhaps we should refer to them as "continuous motion" modes, can work very well for short focal length lenses, because the pixel movement is very small, or long focal length lenses, because you ARE generally better off shooting off a slow moving platform than having to wait for a stop-motion platform to settle.

WhatÂ´s so complicated in these words? Did i mention a pano-head in the sentence? No. I mentioned a moving platform from which i shotusing a 400mm. This platform - an open railway-waggon - definitely moved (relatively) not faster than a spinning pano-head.It was VERY hard to find a minimal-blurred shot though i used 1/1000sec @f8 . . . 1/2000 wasnÂ´t possible without cranking up the ISO to values i donÂ´t like - and which definitely lower the quality.

Of course i do What is "necessary" for you and for me might be two different items, donÂ´t you think? How comes you seem to think it would take me twice as long?And even if it would: whatÂ´s the problem? I donÂ´t do panos factory-wise . . .

gddxb wrote:Speed, or perhaps we should refer to them as "continuous motion" modes, can work very well for short focal length lenses,

As i clearly stated several times . . .

gddxb wrote:or long focal length lenses, because you ARE generally better off shooting off a slow moving platform than having to wait for a stop-motion platform to settle.

You seem to forget exposure-times and you also seem to forget mirror-shaking. Using focal-lengths above 85mm both is very critical. At 400mm itÂ´s extremely critical - here itÂ´s vital that the camera comes to an ABSOLUTE rest. Even mirror-shaking most likely will ruin your quality.

gddxb wrote:It's the middle range of focal lengths where they don't make sense.

Definitely makes more sense than with long teles in terms of versatility.

Gigapixels with 400mm are rarely profitable related to the time you need for proccessing alone.

The most profitable panos are spheres and tours shot with fisheyes and up to 35mm.After that come - in terms of commercial profitability - the moderate teles like 85mm/105mm providing around 4GPix as spheres.Really big gigapixels surely are nice! But very rarely earn adaequate fees.

Please keep providing us with your insight and knowledge of both Josefs and other heads, I personally find it very valuable information, as with any information, one "the individual" is responsable to verify the information, one reads.

We all try to provide the best and most reliable information we have available to us at the time of writing, when advising others, but its ultimately the readers own responsiblity to varify this.